The term “entertainment” takes on bizarre new meaning in Rene Cardona Jr’s entry in the post-Jaws shark film cycle. Graphic and protracted bouts of all-but-unmotivated animal slaughter are puntuated with scenes featuring drinking, drug-taking, nudity, sex, attempted rape, prostitution, partner-swapping, threesomes and, believe it or not, a few things they weren’t so explicit about; and occasionally, just occasionally, someone remembers that this film WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT A SHARK.
[Warning: many of the screenshots in this review are very definitely NSFW…so click at your own risk.]
#1 by The Rev. D.D. on March 18, 2009 - 9:35 am
Quote
At least you finally got a movie with a tiger shark, right?
Although it’s probably a case of “Careful what you wish for,” I imagine.
I’m curious as to why you inflict these movies on yourself. Is it a way to pay respects to those animals that were butchered for “entertainment” purposes? Mere curiosity? A combination of things? I mean, it took a bit of willpower for me to sit through King Dinosaur last year at T-Fest because I knew what was coming, and I’m still not sure why, or if I should have even done so; the rest of the movie was a hoot but the lizard scenes just made me queasy.
I have enough trouble with documentaries about things like this (I saw Sharkwater a couple of years ago and had my not-always-kind feelings toward humanity in general mushroom into pure, seething hatred for a couple of weeks afterwards); hell, the brief scenes of the headless turkey in Blood Freak sucked out a lot of the enjoyment I got from that piece of insanity (which was, up to that point, an absolute scream), and I grew up in a family of farmers, fishers and hunters and regularly helped prepare animals for consumption in my youth. I don’t know that I could make myself watch a movie like Tintorera or Cannibal Holocaust without looking away or turning it off, and I guess I’m trying to gauge whether or not there’s a good reason for me to even want to try.
#2 by The Rev. D.D. on March 18, 2009 - 9:36 am
Quote
Dammit, is there a way to edit posts? I hate when I forget which way to do the tags here…
#3 by Ed on March 18, 2009 - 10:08 am
Quote
So, if this one is the Nekromantik of shark films and Jaws of Death is the Cannibal Holocaust, what would that make Up From the Depths?
Great review, by the way.
#4 by lyzard on March 18, 2009 - 3:25 pm
Quote
There is a way to edit these posts if you are one of the all-powerful moderators. BOW DOWN BEFORE ME, PUNY MORTAL. FYI, the formatting tags here are ‘strong’ and ‘/strong’ instead of ‘b’ and ‘/b’, and ’em’ and ‘/em’ instead of ‘i’ and ‘/i’. I guess it’s a WordPress thing.
.
I don’t think I can answer why I watch these things at all; it falls under the broader banner of why we watch horror movies at all (or movies with shootings, explosions, plane crashes, terrorist attacks…only there our choices don’t get analysed the same way). With films like King Dinosaur, or Robot Monster for that matter, the lizard footage is a blot amongst a lot of entertainment; you accept it as an artefact of its era. Horse-tripping! That’s the other thing to bring up here, and heaven help me, I was brought up on westerns. What I’ve found, as I’ve said before, is that these things have begun to affect me more strongly as I’ve grown older, I don’t know why. I can’t even watch documentaries any more, I just go to pieces. (No, I didn’t see Sharkwater: first, I know what goes on, and second, I’m enough of a misanthrope as it is.)
.
As for The Jaws Of Death and Tintorera specifically, the simplest answer is that I really wasn’t expecting it. I know that these are seventies films so it is likely there will be some real bloodshed but I was totally unprepared for the extent of it. In Tintorera it goes on for minutes at a time. I don’t know what kept me there, except that my anality borders on obsessive-compulsive and I hate not to finish what I start. I can avoid something altogether, like Cannibal Holocaust, and that’s okay; but once a disc goes into the machine… I suppose I should be grateful that I found something in the rest of the film to compensate for some of the misery. However, I doubt I’ll be watching it again.
#5 by lyzard on March 18, 2009 - 3:28 pm
Quote
Thanks, Ed. When I get up to Up From The Depths, I’ll let you know…
#6 by KeithA on March 18, 2009 - 4:53 pm
Quote
Note: you can use b, i, em, or strong — they just have to be in <> instead of [].
Animal Cruelty: Lyz, never wander into the world of Asian horror films. hey were slaughtering real chickens, frogs, and snakes clear into the 90s.
#7 by lyzard on March 18, 2009 - 5:13 pm
Quote
Yes, I know; what’s the film Will warned me against, where the Odious Comic Relief rips up small animals on camera with his teeth? Even something I otherwise love as much as Mr Vampire had to go and ruin everything with a gall-bladderectomy.
(Thanks for the formatting tip, I didn’t know that.)
#8 by The Rev. D.D. on March 18, 2009 - 9:12 pm
Quote
You bring up a good point about it all falling under that same spectre of why we watch horror movies; I think this is getting analyzed since it’s not faked. I’ll admit to seeking out certain movies because of a reputation for brutality or gore; but I’ve never purposely gone out of my way to see something with real dead or dying animals in it (which leaves me very conflicted re: Cannibal Holocaust). I think that veneer of “it’s not real” can cover the vicarious thrills we get from horror movies, but you don’t get that with the animal deaths. Anyone who got a thrill out of something like live sharks being hacked apart onscreen would probably get a fist in the mouth and a one-way ticket out of my life.
I still don’t know if I will (or even can) ever watch these movies. There’s a feeling that, by watching their supposedly entertaining demise, I can somehow honor them. Like, it’s the least I can do for them, on behalf of my often-barbaric, often-unthinking species. On the other hand, to do so I’m probably going to have to give money to the very people who did these things in the first place, which feels like legitimizing what they did.
–
Obviously, if you weren’t expecting it, it would be a different kettle of fish; probably why the scene in Blood Freak was such a buzzkill–I didn’t see it coming and wasn’t ready for it. Knowing what was coming in King Dinosaur probably helped a bit in that regard, as it might in these shark movies.
–
I knew what went on (re: Sharkwater) but had no idea its extent, which just hammered me, emotionally and physically. I was very drained and angry afterwards; it’s probably for the best you’ve not seen it.
Sometimes I think it’d be easier if I just killed my brain cells with massive quantities of beer and lived in a cloud of denial and ignorance. They say it’s bliss, and sometimes I think they’re all too right.
Bleh. Look at me, talking heavy topics on a bad movie board. Time to reread your review of Deep Blue Sea or watch Grizzly RAGE!!!!!!!! or something, methinks.
#9 by KeithA on March 19, 2009 - 11:08 am
Quote
It’s conflicting for me because I love the idea of killer shark movies — it’s an idea filled with potential hilarity, as we have so often seen — but I despise the idea of actually killing sharks and other marine animals as part of it. Since almost all of them do it, it leaves me stuck in one of those absurd moral quandaries in which people like me sometimes end up.
As a diver with a sister who spent years working as a salt water marine biologist (she now works with cave fish and bats in Kentucky), I have a pretty close relationship with marine life and hate to see it wasted in the name of crappy movies, especially when an obviously artificial stand-in would be so much more entertaining. And man — the first time you see a shark in open water? Few things can match the astounding mix of terror and excitement. Luckily, you are underwater, so you can pee whatever you have on…unless, I suppose, you’re doing cold water drysuit diving. The only similar thrills I’ve had have also been underwater — diving a 25 foot deep, crystal clear bay that suddenly drops off into a sheer cliffs hundreds and hundreds of feet big. It’s like stepping off a cliff into open sky, and even though you know you’re not going to plummet down, it’s still awe-inspiring and freaky. And the only thing that blows seeing a shark out of the water is turning around and going, “Hey — that’s a whale…”
There’s a great old bit with Jacques Cousteau where he’s recounting scenes from his first documentary. After watching sharks rip apart some otehr animals (baby whales, maybe?) in a feeding frenzy, the crew goes ape and starts a frenzy of their own, killing as many of the sharks as they can. From our more informed viewpoint, the crew’s actions are horrifying, and Jacques himself later talked about the rage that swept over them, followed by the guilt, and the realization that the shark frenzy was nature, but his and the crew’s frenzy was just revenge.
Of course, if you really want to drum up some righteous marine animal slaughter rage, read pretty much any official statement from Japan about whaling.
#10 by Mark on March 20, 2009 - 10:49 am
Quote
I thought you aren’t supposed to pee when a shark is around – I heard it attracts them (presumably in a non-kinky way).
The Cousteau example illustrates one point we should keep in mind though – the people that made the movies might feel very differently about their actions today and all the “I don’t want to give my money to these people” talk -as understnadable as it is- might just demonize someone who doesn’t really deserve to be seen in such a harsh light.
Attitudes have simply changed a lot over the last two decades or so and perhaps the best example is Australia, where someone like Vic Hislop used to be something of a hero (however minor), but is now little more than some kitsch figure (at best) and an object of ridicule.
Finally, no offense, but I never heard of anyone watching these movies to “honour” the killed animals and the idea -although well intentioned- strikes me as being fairly anthropomorphic and not really all that different from the attitudes held in the 70s and seen in these movies (only the other way round of course).
#11 by The Rev. D.D. on March 20, 2009 - 9:58 pm
Quote
I think there’s a difference in intent between that Cousteau anecdote and the makers of this movie; the former was not done in an attempt to entertain others (I assume they didn’t film it, or at least exhibit it), it would appear to be the case of emotion overriding reason. I don’t think that applies to the filmmakers.
The “it was a different time” defense can only go so far, especially for such a relatively recent time. I’m sure plenty of people of that era would’ve found such actions horrifying. Further, ignorance of an action’s morality (or lack thereof) may excuse taking the action, but not the action itself. Hacking up living animals for the camera isn’t suddenly hunky-dory because they didn’t think it was a big deal.
Still, I don’t think one guy refusing to give them $8 for a DVD of their movie is going to be “harsh” in any sense of the word. Frankly I doubt if they give a rat’s ass.
The whole idea of honoring animals is much older than the 70s. The people then got it from the American Indians (and perhaps other cultures), who did indeed see them as brothers of a sort. I could see someone thinking of it being an anthropomorphizing move, but that’s not how I meant it; more as a “Sorry for my species” sort of thing, maybe a subconscious guilt thing. I don’t know. I do know I’d rather not make animals more like humans; they’re dandy the way they are.
Do I even make any sense with this stuff?
#12 by KeithA on March 22, 2009 - 2:22 pm
Quote
Oh, Cousteau filmed it, and put it in the documentary. But I think he made up for it later in life, many times over.
#13 by lyzard on March 22, 2009 - 4:27 pm
Quote
In one of Ron and Val Taylor’s documentaries they talk about how at the beginning they, too, used to react with, “Shark, kill it!” – until one day it simply dawned on them that 99.9% of the time the shark wasn’t bothering anybody. They got interested in that and their perception and attitude, and behaviour, began to change. An unintended outcome of the making of Blue Water, White Death is that it perfectly captures the ambivalence of the time: do we kill, preserve, exploit, defend?
.
I guess if this is the way it was even for people dedicating their lives to the sea and its occupants we can’t expect a more enlightened attitude from landlubbers. But that doesn’t excuse films like Tintorera, where the killing is indiscriminate as well as dishonest, promoting sharks as THE supreme danger via footage shot by someone obviously in no danger at all. What most people mean when they use the word “obscene” generally doesn’t bother me, but this I find entirely obscene.
.
So where does that leave those of us who watch shark films? Are we culpable? I don’t know. Like Keith, I am very conflicted over this…and I guess at last I’m forced to say something nice about CGI. Embarrassingly awful as CGI sharks always are, at least I can enjoy the idiocy of Shark Zone with a clear conscience. (And before CGI, positively revel in Jaws 3-D. I love you, Swiss-Army Shark!)
.
And the moral dilemmas just keep coming. If I continue down this road, I’m sure to hit Tentacles, with its real octopus killing. Will I watch it? Certainly. Will I complain about it? Certainly. And then we have Cyclone – part shark film, part disaster movie – where, apparently, Rene Cardona Jr got hold of real dead bodies so that he could film the sharks feeding on them. Where do we all stand on THAT, I wonder…?
#14 by The Rev. D.D. on March 22, 2009 - 6:17 pm
Quote
It’s hard to say. The dead shark in Jaws never bothered me too much; maybe I’m able to tell myself they didn’t go out to kill the shark just for the movie in that case. Not so in Tentacles, which left me pretty unhappy (and I was already unhappy with what a piece of crap it was). I have a feeling I’d probably be a bit uncomfortable with Cyclone but I don’t feel like I couldn’t watch it due to that. I’m quite certain they didn’t kill those people just for the movie.
It might be tenuous, but I think I can handle dead things in a movie, if I can be convinced they weren’t killed just for said movie. If I can’t, then I’m going to have a problem. And killing onscreen, or showing genuine death throes…no.
Of course, my view would probably be considered skewed…I saw Faces of Death IV in high school, and after watching various people supposedly die in various ways, the only thing I turned away from was when a Vietnamese woman was going to prepare a puppy for dinner. It might have been just as fake as everything else (I mean, she laid the happy, squirming pup on a cutting board to kill it on, which just seemed absurd), but I wasn’t prepared to find out.
#15 by lyzard on March 22, 2009 - 6:31 pm
Quote
Marty McKee wrote an article at Movie Morlocks once, on how much more upsetting he found animal-related violence, even faked animal-related violence, compared to (most) human violence. A lot of people left comments saying that they felt the same way, although no-one was able to an articulate an explanation for it.
Maybe it’s just that people suck. 🙂
(Edited to add: and what about cartoon animals? Bambi’s mother, anyone? Or, heaven help us, Jurassic Bark?)
#16 by Mark on March 22, 2009 - 6:31 pm
Quote
I’m pretty sure the “real corpses used in Cyclone” story is just a marketing rumour.
#17 by lyzard on March 22, 2009 - 6:44 pm
Quote
Inasmuch as it was supposed to encourage people to see the film?? Yike!
Of course, there are a bunch of films out there that include real autopsy footage, or that do use real dead bodies as props. And what about JFK? I forget who it was, but someone remarked that by including the Zapruder footage, Oliver Stone had made the first honest-to-God snuff movie. (With In The Line Of Fire following suit.)
You know, this would be a great topic for a documentary. We could call it “Murky Waters, Thin Ice“.
#18 by Baron Scarpia on March 23, 2009 - 2:23 am
Quote
If I continue down this road, I’m sure to hit Tentacles, with its real octopus killing. Will I watch it? Certainly.
But you won’t watch Cannibal Holocaust? What’s the difference? I must admit, I’m prepared to see neither. (I’m even uncomfortable with the ‘eating live squid’ scene in Oldboy)
#19 by The Rev. D.D. on March 23, 2009 - 8:56 am
Quote
I’m going to guess it’s because the octopus appears to be already dead by the time the orca puppets get to it, whereas the critters in Cannibal Holocaust are hacked apart live onscreen. Also, there’s the matter of volume. Of course, Ms. Kingsley will correct me if I’m wrong…
I’m trying to think of a cartoon animal that did make me cry, but I don’t seem to be coming up with any (I haven’t seen Watership Down though….and what is Jurassic Bark?)
“Maybe it’s just that people suck.”
Maybe… 😀
#20 by Elizabeth the Ferret on March 23, 2009 - 11:32 am
Quote
There’s an episode of Futurama called Jurassic Bark (and I think that’s what was being referenced). I personally can’t watch it without bawling my eyes out, especially after my dog died.
#21 by Blake Matthews on March 23, 2009 - 11:46 am
Quote
I actually found the final scene of “Watership Down” more touching than the actual (animated) animal violence.
#22 by The Beerman on March 23, 2009 - 1:19 pm
Quote
I know there is one of those old Garfield specials where Odie was gonna get gassed at the pound that reduced me to a blithering idiot.
I had a profound thought about condemning without seeing being less effective than an actual eye-witness account but then I lost it somewhere between my brain and the keyboard. Oh well…
#23 by El Santo on March 23, 2009 - 2:30 pm
Quote
“I had a profound thought about condemning without seeing being less effective than an actual eye-witness account but then I lost it somewhere between my brain and the keyboard.”
I’m pretty sure I know what you mean, though. It definitely confers a certain type of moral authority to be able to say, “Yes, I’ve seen that, and it really is as vile as we’ve been led to belive.”
#24 by Braineater on March 23, 2009 - 7:39 pm
Quote
Cardona, Jr. is also responsible for Night of A [sic] 1,000 Cats, which was the movie that made me refuse to ever watch another Rene Cardona, Jr. film again. One cat is actually killed on-screen — well, sort-of on screen; he’s held under water by Hugo Stiglitz, and you never see him come back up, so the inference is pretty clear. But even the animals that aren’t killed are pretty badly mistreated.
I started writing a review of 1,000 Cats years ago when the rage was still fresh in my mind; but then I realized that if I wanted to be completely fair about it, I’d have to watch it again. Thank you, no.
#25 by lyzard on March 24, 2009 - 3:03 pm
Quote
That’s a very good question, and I wish I had a very good answer; but the bottom line here is simply that Tentacles is a Jaws rip-off and so I will watch it as a matter of course…self-contradiction (hypocrisy?) notwithstanding.
Speaking of Tentacles – and this is something that Will dealt with in his review of that, although in context of films killing children – how far does the quality of the film dictate our response to matters like these? Is it worse when a crappy film does it? Does a good film being good carry its own justification? Do we condemn Tentacles and Tintorera while giving a pass to, say, Walkabout or Weekend?
#26 by KeithA on March 24, 2009 - 3:50 pm
Quote
What about shows like Survivorman? Animals are frequently killed an eaten on screen, with the justification that “it’s a survival situation. But it’s not a survival situation; not really. It’s a TV show, and if you weren’t out there in the wild for the TV show, it wouldn’t be a survival situation. I guess that’s a “manufactured survival situation.” But is the killing justified by the “lessons learned?”
Man vs. Wild might be less of an issue, because I think Bear doesn’t like to eat anything that isn’t two weeks dead by the time he finds it, rotting, and covered with dung.
#27 by Baron Scarpia on March 24, 2009 - 5:31 pm
Quote
Is it worse when a crappy film does it? Does a good film being good carry its own justification?
I think we do operate on that assumption. I mean, I do give Oldboy a pass, if somewhat reluctantly. But also in Oldboy the squid is at least being used as food, and it’s only one scene. It’s hardly the worst offender.
But there’s always a limit. From what I’ve seen of reviews (particularly Will’s), Cannibal Holocaust is not a stupid film. I remember there’s also a story about Bergman’s The Serpent’s Egg, where Bergman wanted to kill a horse on screen. David Carradine, the lead actor, threatened to walk out if this happened. (In the end a real horse’s corpse was shown, but we didn’t see any animal slaughter) I think that if Bergman had filmed the scene he wanted, I would consider the film unwatchable on principle. Which would put a Bergman film in the same club as Cannibal Holocaust and Tentacles.
#28 by Elizabeth the Ferret on March 24, 2009 - 10:31 pm
Quote
I think, in the case of Survivorman, that it’s not as bad because, while it is a manufactured survival situation, he’s killing the animals in order to eat them. It’s not for entertainment or just because he can. It’s because humans are designed to be omnivores, and he’s hungry. I think the only reason they even show it is to show people how to get and prepare food if they’re in a situation like that.
#29 by Baron Scarpia on March 25, 2009 - 2:21 am
Quote
I think the only reason they even show it is to show people how to get and prepare food if they’re in a situation like that.
Is that really likely? How many people end up in that situation?
#30 by Elizabeth the Ferret on March 25, 2009 - 2:58 am
Quote
People DO get lost out in the wilderness at times. They like to go out in nature instead of staying safely at home playing Wii Extreme Mountain Climbing… which doesn’t exist but really should.
#31 by Baron Scarpia on March 25, 2009 - 5:57 am
Quote
What I’m questioning is your use of ‘the ONLY reason’. If it were not entertaining an audience that would obligingly go ‘Ewwwww!’ at appropriate moments, I’m not sure they’d be so ready to show it.
#32 by KeithA on March 26, 2009 - 12:35 pm
Quote
Others may disagree with me. However…
I backpack. I hike. I dive. I rock climb. I’m a prime candidate for one day finding myself lost in the wilderness (disregarding the fact that I’m also careful and realistically in tune with my limits and how far outside of them I can operate, and for how long). And nothing I’d use to survive a bad situation was gleaned from survival television. I’d also be willing to bet that most of the people who get their armchair survival tips from TV would freeze and and completely forget them all (or find they don’t apply) in a real-life situation (I’m reminded of an episode of The Office).
That isn’t meant as a condemnation of Survivorman or any similar show (obviously, I watch enough Survivorman to know what happens on the show). Take it as skepticism over claims of being educational. Doubly so for Man vs. Wild, which really is mostly about watching an Englishman eat large grubs and poo water.
For the record, I don’t find Survivorman offensive. They are manufactured emergency situations, but many of the emergencies in which we could find ourselves are manufactured, if not to entertain audiences than to entertain ourselves. In other words, like Elizabeth says, I wouldn’t be stranded out in the wilderness if I hadn’t decided to wander out into the wilderness.
I’m straying from the original animal point, though. I also grew up on a farm, have done my fair share of primitive camping, hunting, and fishing. I’m not squeamish, and I recognize that, in a way, most of what I eat was killed “for my entertainment,” since I could be just as healthy eating something else. But I wanted a bacon cheeseburger. If Les didn’t eat that toad he caught, wouldn’t he just have eaten a chicken or some other animal that day? At least this one he had to work hard for.
So I suppose my reaction to animal killing in movies is, to a large extent, based on my perception of context and intent.
Aside — I think I’ve mentioned it before, but Tim Cahill had a story in the book Jaguars Ripped My Flesh about working with a dive crew tasked with wrangling a shark for an Italian movie. The movie turns out to be Zombie, and the stories about how the divers and shark handlers react to the ludicrousness of the movie people is, needless to say, pretty entertaining.
#33 by Blake Matthews on March 26, 2009 - 4:12 pm
Quote
I wonder how the dialogue went between the divers, shark handlers, and the production team of “A*P*E”.
#34 by mark on March 28, 2009 - 10:10 am
Quote
“Inasmuch as it was supposed to encourage people to see the film?? Yike!”
Sure, why else would you go to the trouble of getting some real corpses in the first place when some clothing stuffed with offal would do ?
“Of course, there are a bunch of films out there that include real autopsy footage, or that do use real dead bodies as props. And what about JFK? I forget who it was, but someone remarked that by including the Zapruder footage, Oliver Stone had made the first honest-to-God snuff movie. (With In The Line Of Fire following suit.)”
I don’t think so, unless Stone had JFK killed (and hired someone to film the killing) so that he could use the footage in his movie – isn’t the point of a snuff movie that the killing only takes place so that it can be filmed?
#35 by supersonic on April 1, 2009 - 9:10 pm
Quote
I don’t see how Les Stroud eating a rattlesnake is different from me eating a chicken. They even taste alike.